Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

It is because most of the films on that channel, if not all were shot before they changed the aspect ratio to what it is today. As a result the films fill the screen in SD, but not HD.

Aspect ratio has nothing to do with standard and/or high definition.

Up until the 90ies, most film was shot on 35mm film. If the original reels are still available, these can be used to make a high-definition version of any film.

Take this movie as an example:

A Bridge Too Far, 1977 - has been digitally remastered and can be seen in its entirety on Youtube. You can select up to 1080p quality.

The aspect ratio.... is different than 16:9, I grant you that. It is 1.37:1 instead, resulting in a wider screen, which in turn on a 16:9 screen would result in black bars at the bottom and top. For television broadcast, sometimes movies are cropped so they fit on the screen.

As far as TCMHD goes, they have many digital tapes with movies that aren't necessarily in HD, but are of better quality than SD broadcast on 480i. These tapes were often made in the 90ies, before actual High Definition was even an issue, on DVCPRO or BETACAM tapes. These tapes contain a version of the movie that was also derived from the original 35mm film, edited for broadcast, and is still in use today. The quality of the movie on the tape is significantly better than SD, and when these tapes are used to broadcast movies - and many stations that broadcast pre-90ies movies probably use these kind of tapes from their library - via a HD medium, you will see a significant improvement of quality.

In the industry, to be considered "high definition", it has to have a better resolution than 480i. It doesn't have to be wide screen or conform to any sort of aspect ratio. As a matter of fact, in the late 90ies and early 2000s, quite a few TV's were sold - especially the rear-projection kind - that could accept and show 720p HD through component cables, but had a 4:3 screen resolution. Most people just used them as SD TV's. Often, these could also use 4:3 resolutions like 800x600 and 1024x768 to display video, and purely from a technical/theoretical standpoint, those resolutions ARE "high definition", they just aren't one of the currently defined 720/1080 standards.

In any case: TCM HD looks pretty darn good!

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

So, Viacom is showing full episodes of The Daily Show and Colbert Report online again...I'm glad I can get my fix but I did notice something. It seems as though they have increased the number of commercials that they show while viewing.

IIRC, it used to be 2-3 30 sec. commercials; now it seems like there are 4-5 ?

Just thought that it was interesting, especially after the info regarding the amount of revenue Viacom is losing.

From what I have been reading in articles, Viacom has been fielding a lot of calls from angry advertisers, and they might have appeased some of them by putting their commercials in the online version of the show the advertiser paid to be shown with.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

If they don't get this done before the Olympics, then it won't get done until September. The Olympics will dominate viewing, especially with the favorable time change from Britain. Plus it will be August and TV viewing always goes down in August. I just don't see any major pressing for an agreement in August.

I don't know. Viacom DID get DTV to admit that Epix was the issue (it was DTV that brought Epix up first, not Viacom), one way or another. Now everyone on the Facebook page is commenting about the channel itself as it relates to this ordeal. I think people are going to be willing to at least have a trial of the channel to see if it's actually worth it. I would agree that DTV should at least let us see the channel to and let us make up our own minds on it. It wouldn't be practical or fair for them to refuse to add it period without seeing it first. Not understanding how people are saying "we don't want it" without seeing what it is first or what they show on it. I'm hoping, again, that this doesn't become DTV saying "we don't care for the channel, so don't include it or we don't deal" like they did with G4.

Honestly, too, I'm beginning to think this might've not been the first time Viacom has tried to get Epix up there with no avail. If so, and this keeps going, I'm going to think that public opinion might go in Viacom's favor. Though the greedy ******* thing will stay, people could see DTV's stubbornness to add a channel even when people might be willing to let them come to a middle ground compromise about the price of it work against them. Remember that others might see that DTV is unwilling to compromise and is too hard nosed, and might not even bother to negotiate with them. DTV is in a tough boat, too, if this keeps going.

I wouldn't mind having Spike TV back so I can see how "improved" TNA is, myself. And I'm willing to try out Epix if they do add it. I don't want DTV to force us to either have the channel or to go without. Do the ala carte thing like the Sony Movie Channel package thing (don't know the name of it) where, if you want it, you can pay an extra, say, $5/month to have it, and if you don't want to, then you don't have to and can pay the same thing you do now. Viacom gets paid what they want, but then DTV can turn around and make a profit out of those that want Epix (assuming they can). Everyone wins.

But yeah, I think momentum switch to Viacom a bit because now the Epix thing is out in the open, enough for people to be curious about it.

The 5 year olds especially know nothing of the Olympics or August or anything except they don't have spongebob. 9 year olds, not so much. You can talk to them. You might not get through, but you can talk to them.

The 5 year olds especially know nothing of the Olympics or August or anything except they don't have spongebob. 9 year olds, not so much. You can talk to them. You might not get through, but you can talk to them.

:listenup: I suppose you could always tell the 5 year olds that the guy in the pool winning the medals is SpongeBob all grown up.

As far as begin able to get through to a 9 year old? Doesn't happen until about 21 or 22.

If they don't get this done before the Olympics, then it won't get done until September. The Olympics will dominate viewing, especially with the favorable time change from Britain. Plus it will be August and TV viewing always goes down in August. I just don't see any major pressing for an agreement in August.

I'm not so sure the audience that likes Jersey Shore and Teenwolf is the same audience that likes the Olympics.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.